Comment: "Do you concede the point?"

(See in situ)


"Do you concede the point?"

No. Those gospels don't concur. I didn't change the subject; you downplayed the importance of the details regarding who was present in the tomb and offered an account that is a cumulative, personalized understanding of the gospels that's based in your own rejection of any notion that Biblical texts could contradict. I feel as though you'll have an answer prepared for any plain contradiction I could point out in the Bible, but even then, that solution would be entirely your own--that reconciliation itself is not in the bible.

That's moreso what I was addressing: whether the gospels contradict doesn't really matter. You're combining them to conveniently quell any concept of contradiction. My assertion is that you don't need to combine aspects from stories that were not meant to be combined. None of the gospels knew about the others; certainly they would not care to be mixed with other accounts which they would have probably deemed erroneous.

"There is no manuscript evidence for Q"
yeah i know